Talk:Computer keyboard/Archive 1 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Computer_keyboard/Archive_1

This is an archive of past discussions about Computer keyboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

would be important having references to Sun Model-X keyboards here - they are completelly different of the IBM-based keyboards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.68.22 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here. The keyboards descrbed don't seem to have anything to do with chording systems—like a court room stenographers machine. I think this section just has the wrong name. --76.8.199.138 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Check this out: compromising electromagnetic emanations of wired keyboards at http://lasecwww.epfl.ch/keyboard/ Mansor 09:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.73.72 (talk)

In countries speaking other Latin alphabet languages, small variations on QWERTY can be found; the Brazillian Portuguese and Spanish keyboard layouts, for example, while having enough differences to disrupt a QWERTY typist's fluency, have many more keys in common with QWERTY than not.

I should note this experience is based entirely on Microsoft Windows. I have used Spanish layout keyboards in Paraguay, and I sometimes use Windows' Brazillian Portuguese layout to type things on my copy of Windows at home. Perhaps there are other Spanish layouts I'm not aware of. I have seen a Portuguese Portuguese keyboard, and it also looked similar. -- Ryguasu

Would be nice to have something about Dvorak keyboards...

The top picture of a standard American keyboard layout is for Windows only. Would like to have an Apple keyboard layout on this page please. --Neonblue2

I want the Amiga keyboard layout there too or I'll wage holy war!

Seriously, point taken (I do live in the UK, but don't use the Amiga much really), but there's an article on keyboard layouts (keyboard layout) elsewhere, and that picture is only (or should only) be an example of a 'typical' keyboard layout to illustrate a point. Perhaps it could be qualified in some way, though.

Fourohfour 11:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The top picture of a standard American keyboard layout is incorrect. It is not American, but rather the Asian "american" style. A true american keyboard has a rectangular enter key, the \ moved on top, and a wider backspace key. The picture of the Microsoft on screen keyboard is correct.

The following statement: "In English speaking countries, the IBM PC keyboard with the QWERTY layout is nearly universal."

is false, as UK readers will no doubt attest. So I killed it, and removed some other stuff WRT "keyboard layouts" better suited to that page.

Universal keyboard in any language http://klawiatura.wordpress.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.185.188.251 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone looking for certain info on keyboards would have to look through the see also section for info about keyboards for information on keyboard layouts. I feel that information about various aspects on the keyboard need to be here, with a link to the main article, so that all of the basic info about keyboards is in one place. Reub2000 07:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What would be a good objective name and definition for the happy hacking keyboard link?

I ended up in writing... "Happy Hacking keyboards, appreciated among geeks"

I was aware that this maybe wasn't the best expression and maybe not even objective enought, but it was the best I could come up with.

In 22:44, 8 May 2005 edit, Omegatron changed it to ... "Happy Hacking keyboards, a minimalistic keyboard designed for hackers"

I think this is even worse as it labels the keyboard to hackers. Hacker is a bad word anyway because it has a million meanings and I'm sure that an average wikipedia reader would not understand it, instead she would go blaming happy hacking keyboard users of being a computer criminal. "minimalistic" is also a very inaccurate and misleading expression.

Please give your opinnion on this. --Easyas12c 16:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to read about the names of the keys. For example. what are the names ~ @ # % ^ & { }?

Keys or characters? What is name of the key labelled "A". Is it "A"-key?

I have I, i, PSc and SRq under the same key with different meta keys.

Is this then "I/i/PSc/SRq"-key. I think most keys don't have names.

How about "return" and "enter" these are maybe names for the keys, but they are often misused. Return is called "enter" so often that I've even seen keyboards with both keys having label "enter" this is bad because it adds confusion. Imagine that some people design and manufacture keyboards and not even they know what the names are.

We should also write about the history. Starting with Commodore 64-, Amiga- and terminal-keyboards.

So shortly. Yes I agree with you. This should be discussed and documented.

I welcome everyone to join in further discussion. --Easyas12c 18:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

From left to right: tilde, at sign, number/pound sign, percent sign, hat, ampersand, left curly bracket, right curly bracket, question mark. : ) For reference, see the article on punctuation.

Other observations: the tilde shares space with the backtick (`) key, which here seems to be called a prime. The "PSc" key is also known as the "Print screen" key, and it still works today in Windows XP (and all other versions of Windows, of course).

I've taken to calling # `Octothorpe'. This link has some interesting info.

Actually, I think the proper name for '^' is 'caret'.

{ } are also known as 'braces'. In cases where ( ) (or 'parentheses') are referred to as 'brackets', [ ] can be referred to as 'square brackets'.

Wikipedia (WP) has now advanced to the level where you can paste just about any character that Unicode offers into WP search and hit enter, and an article will pop up telling you the name(s) of the character (common names, uncommmon names), history of usage, computing codes under various encoding systems, etc. It is very useful! Anytime you're reading WP and you see a character that you want to know more about, try copying it and pasting it into the search field. — ¾-10 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this really notable? I mean, how many people do this? Is there a reference?

 Some users find some keys (...) more disturbing than useful.

This doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If nobody objects to this in the next few days or so, I will remove this section. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I also want to see it removed. Teklund 15:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since there has been no objections. I have removed this. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:30, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add a section on why one might want to use a particular type of keyboard? I just had to explain to my mother-in-law why wireless keyboards are not something to get just for their looks. It seems that many people might benefit from info like this...

You might be on shaky ground. It sounds like original research to me. But if you can cite sources, I don't see any reasons why not. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the function keys and alt and spacebar and numeric keypads and all that, there seem to be two major keyboard variants. One, used in the US, has the grave-tilde key next to the 1-! key; the other moves that key down to next to z, and has a §-± key next to the 1-! key. Anyone know what the story on this is? It's been a "feature" of Apple keyboards, at least, for a long time. Evertype 15:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone knwo where i can find the 'check' icon key? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Two links removed; the first was clearly useless- a link to a run-of-the-mill IT box-shifting website showing a generic keyboard. How did this add *anything* to the article? This could have been an attempt at gaming Google's pagerank, but it might just be a clueless newb adding stuff for the sake of it.

The second was the link to the list of computer manufacturers. At least half of this was adverts, and the whole thing smacked of those annoying 'directories' whose only real purpose is to get into Google's search results and get page-views and clicks for the adverts, regardless of how useful they are. There was a list of manufacturers at the end, but this did not add much to the article.

Fourohfour 17:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the disagreement on what ALT-CTRL-DEL does under Linux, The Anome asserts that it does "zippo" (which apparently means "nothing").

Sorry, but that's flat-out wrong. I appreciate that Linux is very configurable, and assume that it's possible to disable the behaviour altogether. However, as far as default behaviour goes, the first Linuxes I used (RH 5 onwards) gave an immediate reboot as soon as it was hit. Later versions, including Fedora Core 3 (which I currently use) do the equivalent of "shutdown -r now"; i.e. they close the system down properly before reboot.

Fourohfour 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On Ubuntu Linux, CTRL+ALT+DEL does nothing. 64.119.66.10 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Under X-windows the behavior of CTRL+ALT+DEL is determined by the window manager. I believe that KDE and Gnome both have behavior very simular to Microsoft Windows. On a terminal the behavior of CTRL+ALT+DEL is controled by an entry in the /etc/inittab file.

Gam3 10:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Gnome under FC5 still seems to do the equivalent of typing "shutdown -r now" into a terminal window; c.f. Windows where it brings up the menu. OTOH, maybe your distro has it configured differently. Fourohfour 12:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Some computer motherboard BIOS has "keyboard power on" (KBPO) feature. That when the computer is powered off, instead of pressing the "power" button, you can press example spacebar on keyboard to power it on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frap (talk • contribs) .

Yes, we know that. But why are you saying it here? :) --Gennaro Prota^•Talk 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he wants to have it mentioned somewhere in the article xP Skaterblo 13:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read about the Alphasmart Neo keyboard which the user can type on, storing up to 250 pages of text, and then transfer via USB to computer. It has a small screen for text, and it's claimed to be light and tough, with low power usage (3 AA batteries in 18 months according to an article in my local newspaper). I would absolutely love something like this (cheaper and more practical than a laptop), but was wondering if there are less expensive technologies that do the same thing? (The price I saw in Australia was A$500, about US$375, though it's about $250 in the US, and there might be a cheaper "education" price.)

I think these types of keyboard could even be an alternative to projects such as Simputer and the $100 computer if the price were more competitive. --Singkong2005 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Article doesnt mention how it easily comes dirt and dust and crap in between the keys and such...

Could have been worded better, but your right. There ought to be a section on the annoyance/inconvenience of dust and food etc becoming lodged inbetween keys. Comments, people? Skaterblo 12:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure whether it worths mention; for instance there's no section on that in basement or finger nail.Cloviz 00:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Article dont mention about health risks and pain in wrists from using keyboards...

Merge from the article on RSI? Skaterblo 13:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a merge, IMHO, but definitely a mention, possibly with external/internal links. I remember having read some articles on the subject (proper desk/keyboard/monitor placement etc.) on the net. Could someone choose one or two quality links and add them to the todo-list? —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I hate WP editors - why my edit about health risks have been reverted? ABCnews isn't a good source? There are tens of similar articles on the net including health and science journals - if you do not like the link I provided, add/replace it with a better one. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The source was valid, your comments on it weren't. One keyboard with many germs does not make true your assertion that "according to numerous studies keyboards can be a serious health hazard". Diego Moya (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you point, however I fail to understand why the entire section has been removed instead of getting clarified or corrected. It seems like new information on this topic is simple not welcomed. Great, I will know that and won't touch this article ever again. Good luck. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many keyboard layouts, such as 101, 102, 104, 108, etc. Is the difference between these documented on Wikipedia? If not, please add this information somewhere. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no standard for this IMHO. There was a time when the 104 keyboard had a small enter key and the 105 keyboard had the large enter key (yes this seems backwards). But I don't think that the number of keys tells anything about the layout any more.

Gam3 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

http://gadgets.fosfor.se/the-top-10-weirdest-keyboards-ever/ crazy stuff like the datahand and orbitouch deserve a mention;) 0roo0roo 15:31, 5 October 2006

• LoL :-) I begin to think that we should say the computer keyboards were *originally* designed after typewriters keyboards —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As most computer keyboard lay-outs (Qwerty, Azerty, ...) are based on a typingwriter-keyboard, it is understandable that the new lay-outs (Dvorak, ...) are much better suited for typing due to the specific keyboard design problems that typingwriters faced. Typingwriters keyboard design had to be balanced between the mechanical problem that letters needed to be spaced apart . This because the letters were attached to booms who needed to move freely, aswell as the problem that the hands needed to be able to reach much used letters easily. As computer keyboards do not have these limitations and therefore no balance needs to be found, it is unimaginable that the same typingwriter keyboard layouts where transferred to computer keyboards.

The above text (or a simplified version of it) should be included in the computer keyboard article, so that people can learn that the transfer of qwerty and azerty keyboard lay-outs to computer keyboards did happen, and that this was wrong.

KVDP 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, but move obviously generic material here. I'm strongly in favour of keeping closely-related info together, in context, if the article isn't too long and the alternative is pointless perma-stubs. That doesn't apply here. Merging large amounts of PC-specific detail would make the common mistake of bloating generic articles with excessive detail regarding specific cases. As the most common keyboard, some info should be included here, but keep the nitpicky detail in its own article. Fourohfour 13:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, quoting in full Fourohfour. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Fourohfour. Fedallah 04:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "customization of keyboard" section; someone added this before, and I removed it as it was more appropriate to (a) an "External links" section and (b) more appropriate to the IBM PC keyboard article, since it all relates to Windows keyboard customisation. The original author restored it, and gave his/her reasons here, so rather than remove it again, I thought I'd ask here what people thought. Fourohfour 13:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you. And the additions look very naive, anyway (what's the difference between "customize the layout" and "remap the keys", BTW? See for instance the todo list at Talk:Keyboard layout; did the original author mean "customizing the physical layout"? :-o) —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 19:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on how keyboards work, but I feel this is worth mentioning, if only on the talk page until some one can clarify it.

Most keys send a single code to the computer when pressed. For example, if you press "0", ascii code 48 (my numbers in decimal) gets sent.

However, if you press an arrow key, the result is two codes, for example (my memory is iffy) down might send 0 and 80.

The technical workings behind this aren't exactly clear to me, but the fact remains that a gamer will have more frequent troubles with "phantom key blocking" if they use the arrows, as opposed to the WSAD combo.

- Bomb Bloke 11:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a more suitable candidate for IBM PC keyboard than the general article. Fourohfour 14:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You might also mention this in the scancode article. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some history of the keyboard in there too?

217.140.112.221 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes sure, I was looking for it. This article must have history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.196.112 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea what this means. In my experience sentences starting "of course" tend to introduce statements that are obvious to the writer but obscure to everyone else. Would someone like to re-word, please? --rossb 13:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the articles should be merged. A keyboard is an object while a keystroke is an action. Keystroke should remain a stub with the possibility of a list of default windows keystrokes listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.236.103 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ergonomic Keyboard for Pirates. Have a happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day. --70.130.45.233 04:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article should be moved to Keyboard (computing) to be more consistent with Mouse (computing) and since it's more commonly referred to as a "keyboard" and not a "computer keyboard". Anybody dissagree? —TigerK 69 06:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is recommended that you remove all references to Qwerty in this article as it is an archaic and unergonomical keyboard layout. Keyboard manufacturers have ignored any physical improvements in keyboards, by not welcoming any improvements in the keyboard layout, such as Dvorak.

The use of "shift" on some keyboards (to get uppercase letters) is also an archaism. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone deserves the more modern and more efficient Dvorak keyboard layout. Period.

The above was at the top of the page with the todo tag above it. I have (well another user has due to my colleges proxy not letting me edit the full page) moved it down here and removed the todo tag. I have no idea of the user who made it and knowing my luck a signiture bot will sign it as mine. Also a shift to dvorak would mean a complete rewrite to most accepted shortcuts and having to reconfigure many old shortcuts and keyboard commands. I doubt it will ever happen. TheGreatZorko (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See the article in The Guardian - [1] - where did the "internet legend" of washing keyboares come from? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the question I have posted on Talk:KVM_switch#Wireless_mouse_and_keyboard_set. This is related to using a set of wireless keyboards as a KVM switch. Charles.2345 (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Back in the late 1990s, I had a Windows UK keyboard which had a mysterious "turbo" button to the right of the right Shift – nonfunctional but strangely reassuring. Does anyone know what this was supposed to be? (Also, this keyboard differed from the UK norm by having the "#"/"~" key between "="/"+" and Backspace, rather than between the "'"/"@" and Return.) 212.137.63.86 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Way back, shortly after the IBM PC was introduced (8-1-81, as I recall), clone makers soon introduced their compatible versions of PCs. Many of these used versions of the 8088 chip that could run faster, like the 8088-2 or the NEC-V20 chips. But that caused problems, because some early software programs (especially games) depended on the speed of the chip for various delays -- the new chips ran faster, and thus the timing of these programs was off. So PC makers added a key to the keyboard that would set the CPU to run at full speed 'turbo' mode, or limit the speed to the original 8088 4.77 MHz speed. T-bonham (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Under specialty keyboards, there is a sentence that reads, "It is very popular with videographers who have to spend hours editing their raw video." As an editor, I have to point out that it is editors who spend hours editing video. Some videographers edit, but by no means all.

I am unable to make the change, because this article is semi-protected, so I'd be grateful to anyone who can.

Thanks,

Wikirena (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten that subsection. Tadpole9^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the F, J, and numpad 5 keys have a raised dash on the bottom of them, or a raised dot in the centre? 220.253.29.161 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are to keep touch typists oriented without looking at the keys. — ¾-10 03:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to find out about laptop keyboards: how they differ from full-size keyboards in terms of keyboard layout, dimensions; whether there is a standard 'laptop keyboard' (I assume there is, because Asus quotes their Eee PC's as having keyboards 83% and 92% the size of 'standard' laptop keyboards, so...), but find nothing in the article... C'mon guys!

- Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.74.162 (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Request registered users to add the following in the Physical Injury section:

It is also advisable to use a macro recorder to record and automatically replay repetitive keystrokes and clicks thus considerably limiting physical injuries caused by keyboard and mouse clicks.

Thanks (Automaite (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

I declined your request because your username implies a conflict of interest, and because you failed to provide a reliable source with this information. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The title "foldable" is rather misleading, as the keyboard pictured is definitely not foldable, and although "rollable" the manual will specifically state that it should never be folded. A folding keyboard would be more similar to a hinged keyboard that actually folds into 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 segments (such as many bluetooth keyboards for small devices). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.49.18 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On Oct 07, 2009, IP 59.62.57.238 added a section about "MOBBAL™ Technology keyboards", which was promptly removed as spam by Jaydec.

An hour and a half later, the same IP re-added the same content in a different guise, with a few external links to spare. Following Jaydec, I removed this again on Oct 14.

Now An Justified Wikipedian, FWIW a user with multiple accounts, re-added again. I'd like to call attention to this likely attempt at manipulation and preclude any reprovals for Edit warring. What can I do about this? Regards, 212.202.199.192 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, it was I who did this but not being spam only a not very familiar user with the system - it was and is not, Spam, it is relevant index and under Wikipedia's Keyboard Technology you would find the MOBBAL technology index and if you'd read the content and disregard the repeating of editing (again, just a first timer) you would notice it is relevant and has real content and not at all advertising in nature - again - I am sorry if it had seemed to be Spam or any other reason for disqualifying, but it is far from Spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.27.223 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I took the liberty of indenting your answer. I can't judge the relevance of your additions as I'm not a regular editor of this article and really did only remove them because it superficially looked like advertising to me. I'd prefer if you pasted them here and let someone else decide this, but if you can't or don't want to wait, I won't revert if you re-add them to the article. Best wishes, 212.202.199.192 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this really needed? Like at all? It seems messy and unnecessary. Besides that, most of those symbols cannot be accessed directly through most keyboard layouts. 69.196.173.234 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the article Alphanumeric keyboard be merged to the article Keyboard (computing). The former article is underdeveloped and does not contain information (insofar as worth keeping) that would be out of place here, in Keyboard (computing).  --Lambiam 11:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree (and I was the inventor of the PC keyboard). Mtiddens (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

done. Now the whole lot needs to betrimmed to about 505 of the present size. there's very little in the article that anyone using the Web doesn't already know! Pushing the buttons makes letter and numbers appear on the screen...wow, deep insight here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The article picture of a laptop keyboard is pretty bad; it's a shaken photo, and it does not show an entire keyboard. Perhaps a svg layout (or similar) of a typical qwerty-keyboard would be better. Or just a picture that isn't shaky :) 212.10.51.2 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What about the symbols above the keyboard and under the display on my little notepad? One of them lights up when the Caps Lock key is depressed. What about the others, particularly the one that looks like a can? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Better to ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, this page is for discussion of improvements to this article. Have you checked your owner's manual? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, well thanks anyway. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Somme comments about introduction following:

«In computing, a keyboard is a typewriter-style keyboard, which uses an arrangement of buttons or keys, to act as mechanical levers or electronic switches. Following the decline of punch cards and paper tape, interaction via teleprinter-style keyboards became the main input device for computers.»

Useless in introduction; might be usefull in an history section. First sentence should be more generric, I would prefer:

In computing, a keyboard is an arrangement of buttons or keys, primilary designed to input text in a computer. Since the XX° century they replaced punch cards and paper tape. Keyboards are caracterized by the layout which is a set of caracters specific to a culture in a special position on the keyboard.

«Despite the development of alternative input devices, such as the mouse, touchscreen, pen devices, character recognition and voice recognition, the keyboard remains the most commonly used and most versatile device used for direct (human) input into computers.»

I agree althouth it might be after next paragraph... or not

«A keyboard typically has characters engraved or printed on the keys and each press of a key typically corresponds to a single written symbol. However, to produce some symbols requires pressing and holding several keys simultaneously or in sequence. While most keyboard keys produce letters, numbers or signs (characters), other keys or simultaneous key presses can produce actions or computer commands.»

If a keyboard permit to enter a character and not a word, doesn't the keyboard permit to enter a digit and not a number?

Also I would prefer:

While most keyboard keys produce characters (letters, digits or other signs),

Also, this is more specifically true for countries whose language is alphabet based, exckuding some CJK ones.

«In normal usage, the keyboard is used to type text and numbers into a word processor, text editor or other programs. In a modern computer, the interpretation of key presses is generally left to the software. A computer keyboard distinguishes each physical key from every other and reports all key presses to the controlling software. Keyboards are also used for computer gaming, either with regular keyboards or by using keyboards with special gaming features, which can expedite frequently used keystroke combinations. A keyboard is also used to give commands to the operating system of a computer, such as Windows' Control-Alt-Delete combination, which brings up a task window or shuts down the machine. »

Seems a bit perfectible:

the keyboard is used to type text and numbers to software such as word processor, text editor, electronic mail, tableur, ...

Modern computer is vague. Might be PC? Or is there any computer who do not?

the software is vague: the driver? the application software? the operating system?

«Keyboards are the only way to enter commands on a command-line interface.»

Looks false as mouse permit to copy and paste on most command line interfaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.139.130 (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

When was the last time you *saw* a typewriter, let along used one? We may need a description that speaks more to the current generation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the younger generations no longer recognize them? I see children playing with steam trains or dial phones with handsets all the time, perfectly aware of what they are. They are also aware of the fact that oldtimers are cars and that vinyl players and cassette players can be used to play music. Perhaps they know because books continue to show all these things as well, I don't know. Operating systems still use "floppy" icons for removable media storage, and computer displays as well as TVs are still frequently shown as CRTs.

It is certainly an interesting question, when all these items will no longer be recognized, however, I think it is several decades before this will actually happen for such widespread things.

To answer the question: I see one every day (electronic rotary wheel typewriter with display and memory), although it has been several years since I used it... ;-) The last time I saw a mechanical typewriter has been about a month ago... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. That's why the icon on my dashboard is a bale of hay on the gas gauge, and why there's a little picture of a candle next to that switch on the wall. You don't think "A keyboard is a keyboard-shaped object" is fundamentally a weak way to start a definition? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Could we instead say something like "A computer keyboard is an array of push-buttons used to enter character data into a computer system. The most common general-purpose arrangement, with both alphabetic and numerical characters as well as control functions, resembles the layout of a typewriter, but specialized keyboards exist in dedicated applications such as bank machines or point of sale terminals. Following the decline of punch cards..." etc. as we have now. That way we don't say things that reduce to " A keyboard is a keyboard". --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a proposition just after in #Disagreement with introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.139.130 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what User:Wtshymanski meant by the replacement image being "spammy", but it just struck me that the arty one-keypress image (which I put there myself months ago) maybe isn't all that representative - pressing dramatically down with one finger is not how keyboards are traditionally used, and the angle and blurriness make the keys appear blank. Per WP:IMAGE LEAD, I wouldn't say this was "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works".

The replacement was the best image I could find on commons that clearly showed a full keyboard. I'll see if Flickr has anything better. --McGeddon (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Who refers to it as a "computer keyboard"? "Keyboard" is much more common. Also, many noncomputer devices have keyboards. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at the requested moves process? If there is no objection to your proposal here or you don't think there would be an objection, you can be bold and move the page yourself. If you think there might be any controversy then you might consider using Template:RMtalk to structure a more formal discussion here. Jojalozzo 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For some strange reason, i only see the move arrow on the talk page, not on the article. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I use the default Vector skin and some configuration settings that put the "Move page" option in a Page dropdown menu. I can see it there so it should be possible for you to move it. I don't know what the "move arrow" is. Maybe you could ask at WP:Help Desk how to move it. Jojalozzo 21:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the dropdown box. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't move the page because it's been move-protected, i.e., only administrators can move it to a new title. That's most probably because of the reason that "Computer keyboard" is considered to be inarguably the most suitable title.

However, you can request the page to be moved to a different title here. — smtchahal 13:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is locked so I could not add a wikilink in the section Chorded keyboard to the Chorded keyboard wikipedia article.

It's a 30 second change for anyone with the rights - thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.245.252 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If a random plebeian may cut in, I believe that this article is missing important information regarding the continued manufacture of mechanical key switches (the Cherry MX standard for instance), and their continued use among enthusiasts for their speed and feedback. Also worth mentioning would be the great value placed on the old buckling spring IBM keyboards by aforementioned enthusiasts. While this information is on the keyboard technology page, I believe these small references would still be useful on the main page. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.162.9 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is 32-key variant:

;	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	A	B	C	D	E
F	Z	H	I	K	L	M	N
O	P	Q	R	S	T	V	X

You can remove the text using right-click menu. You use the missing letters using latin equalivement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.204.195 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of there being a agreed standard for key sizing and I can't find any credible source about standard size keyboard either. There had been some very popular keyboards in history (the IBM Model M comes to mind), but popularity alone doesn't make it a standard, else we would be calling the Ford Model T the standard size car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.1.98 (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I can find very little information on this, even from otherwise excellent manufacturers such as logitech. The keyboard specs don't include the sizes and spacing of the keys, which is a critical factor in reducing keyboard fatigue IMO.

Some measurements of the overall length of the row QWERTYUIOP inclusive (but just the alpha keys, not the Tab and special character keys at the ends of the row):

• Bauhn wireless USB combo (bought at ALDI as part of a mini-system package) 19cm
• IBM multimedia (wired USB) keyboard 19cm
• Logitech backlit keyboard+touchpad 18cm
• HP subnotebook 17.5cm

I find the 19cm perfect but have no trouble with the 18cm either. But a good friend (with smaller hands... mine are quite large) finds the 18cm keyboard much easier to use.

Other measurements? Yes I know this is OR but it's good to get things right as well as sourced.

Even better, any RSs? Andrewa (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

See http://www.pcguide.com/ref/kb/const/cap_Size.htm for some information... The reason for standardized keycap size, spacing and alignment is a simple one: not having a standard would make everyone who has to use more than one keyboard utterly miserable. Touch typists and data entry people learn the "feel" of a keyboard and become used to its spacing and the size of its keys. Moving between two keyboards with different-sized keys or keys with different spacings would slow people down. It would also cause major retraining problems for new employees, or if you bought a new PC, and so on. It says the standard is .75" centre to centre, see the diagram there. I guess that corresponds to 19cm above (but it's a little harder to measure accurately than the measurement I chose... it would mean 3" from the centre of the Q to the centre of the T, I might use that as the standard from now on).

Yep, the "standard" Q-T centre to centre of the Bauhn and IBM keyboards is 3", the Logitech is a little over 2 3/4".

But I have to disagree with the conclusion of the above ref... it's actually better to have a keyboard that fits your hands, on evidence to date. I think I'd like one a bit bigger in fact!

I wonder... I did my first serious typing on an IBM 026 keypunch, and then IBM 029s and DECWriter IIs. Wonder what their spacing was? Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to a question at the reference desk [2] I've now again measured the Q-T centre to centre of the Logitech... very close to 2 3/4", versus the standard 3". Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The reference desk did well [3] ... I'll let the thread there go to archive in due course and permalink to it there (meantime the diff will have to do).

But how to progress this so as to get verifiable, sourced information for our article... I wonder, would Wikiversity be a suitable place? Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks promising, see v:Portal:Research.

Similarly, Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#When to link reads in part Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers....

The problem is likely to be having a Wikiversity page accepted as a reliable source. That's not insurmountable:

• It may be groundbreaking (or not), but publishing suitably reviewed material, both in journals and in the proceedings of seminars and conferences etc., is a standard part of a university, and seems within the scope of Wikiversity's aims etc..

• At worst, a scholarly paper or colloquium hosted at Wikiversity could be used in a see also section.

Comments welcome of course! Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether a computer sees all of the keydown and keyup operations of every key, or whether the keyboard processor makes substitutions based on modifier keys is important to know. This article does not provide the answer. The designer of an application may want to know whether he/she can use a non-modifier key as if it were a modifier key, and he may look at this page for an answer. FreeFlow99 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not as simple as it might seem. See scancode and rollover (key) for some more information. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Computer keyboard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225110203/http://www.liberiangeek.net/2009/12/introduction-linux-mint-8-main-edition-helena/ to http://www.liberiangeek.net/2009/12/introduction-linux-mint-8-main-edition-helena/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121212184655/http://maven.smith.edu/~thiebaut/ArtOfAssembly/CH20/CH20-1.html to http://maven.smith.edu/~thiebaut/ArtOfAssembly/CH20/CH20-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Computer keyboard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100924200028/http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/onenote-help/use-a-keyboard-layout-for-a-specific-language-HP003084567.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/onenote-help/use-a-keyboard-layout-for-a-specific-language-HP003084567.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011214354/http://www.lbl.gov/ehs/pub811/hazards/ergonomics.html to http://www.lbl.gov/ehs/pub811/hazards/ergonomics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In some laptops, possibly all in current production, the keyboard is connected by a flexible flat cable. The cables I've seen have 24 conducting lines. The ribbon and connector could be standardized now. No mention of this connection under Connection types. If someone can write about it, good. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the article does not mention the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard.— Ineuw talk 21:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As of now, not only is there an entire article, Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, on the Dvorak keyboard, but there is

• mention of that keyboard in the Computer keyboard article's "Layout" section
• a photo/image of same beside the above mention
• an entry in "See also" Pi314m (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT KEYBOARD FROM HONEYWELL, Hall-effect, about $100 in 1968/9, equivalent to $857 in 2024. --MarMi wiki (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Projection keyboard
• wearable keyboard (TAP, AK-39)
• Keyless Keyboard (orbiTouch, TAP)
• vertical keyboard or "3D keyboard" (SafeType, yogitype; both are also ergonomic keyboards)
• foldable keyboards example, firm material- not neccesarily flexible which would be a subclass of foldable keyboards (some flexible keyboards are made from silicon and can be rolled into a cylinder)
• glass keyboard
• modular keyboard (Mad Catz S.T.R.I.K.E.5 Gaming Keyboard, Ultimate Hacking Keyboard)
• gaming keyboard, some like Warrior Extreme are not designed to type and some have standard layout
• customizable keyboard (example Optimus Popularis, Optimus Maximus)
  • programmable keyboard (macros and key combinations stay on the keyboard - so those customizations transfer to other computers); (example Logitech G19) - it has a design similar to stadard keyboard (or standard split keyboard) while customizable differs more
  • DIY keyboard (DX1 Input System by Ergodex- for those who want to design their own gaming keyboard; kit includes blank slate, a set of adhesive keys, and a pack of stickers... put the keys anywhere on the slate ... included software to assign macros to each key)
• handheld keyboard ( Alphagrip iGrip, Grippity1.0 BackTyping Keyboard)
• single-handed keyboard (Maltron Single-Handed Keyboard, The Frogpad, TAP)
• (membrane keyboard) that accepts gestural multitouch input on its surfaces so that the user can initiate shortcuts and perform pointing maneuvers (Touchstream ST by FingerWorks)
• BackTyping Keyboard (yogitype, Grippity1.0 BackTyping Keyboard)
• hybrids (+trackpad, +trackballs, ...)
  • remote control device (touchpad, media control keys, gaming keys, qwerty keypad...)
• other: Datahand Professional II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.152.20 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

add information regarding keyboard ghosting

I don't know how old this is because it was done in a way that meant that it wasn't signed or dated. If anyone is still interested, "Keyboard ghosting" is Microsoft terminology and a link to the Microsoft documentation can be found at Scancode#USB, --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please re-add this article. 111.88.15.159 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean up/down/left/right? or "hot keys" like the Windows logo, the menu key, the search key on Chrome OS. Please explain further. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am midway through reviewing this article, in particular to distinguish as a hardware article that differs from the software article Keyboard layout. I have a lot more to do so right now there is some duplication that needs resolving. When that is done, I will look at incorporating the suggestions above. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Review complete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Keyboard technology which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that we seem to have three overlapping articles when there is really no need for more than two:

• Keyboard layout, which is about the software control of keyboards and includes keyboard mapping
• Keyboard technology, which is about keyboard hardware
• This article, which is precisely what?

Is there any convincing reason why this article should continue to exist? (except as a disambiguation article for the two above). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:Summary style, Keyboard layout and Keyboard technology are sub-articles; this article should summarize the most important information in each. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As there have been no responses in over six months to my wp:forking challenge above, I intend to delete this article at the end of March unless there is a credible consensus that it be retained, where 'credible' includes a proposal to deal with the fork. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have a suggestion for an alternate arrangement:

1. Keep the Keyboard layout article, with no substantive change.
2. Merge most of the content of Keyboard technology, which is almost entirely about computer keyboards, into this article.
3. Repurpose Keyboard technology to talk about the full historical range of keyboard technologies, including mechanical typewriters, ten-key adding machines, mechanical cash registers, braille typewriters, Chinese typewriters, in addition to a general section on computer keyboards, with a section hatnote leading to this article.

Just a thought as to how you can make the existing ecosystem make sense. VanIsaac, MPLL _WS^cont 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the logic of that approach. I did consider something along those lines but it requires more time and expertise than I have available. Perhaps the threat of actual deletion will motivate someone who has these rare qualities to come forward and just do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I received an alert about this discussion, and have added some more forks at Keyboard. Sparafucil (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds reasonable to me, without going into it too deeply. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Since there is a clear consensus and no dissenting voices, I have now made this change. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Almost all of the articles that link here are looking for keyboard technology so I have abandoned the disambiguation idea and made it a simple redirect. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Key press documentation says "the {{key press}} template primarily designed to illustrate keys and keystrokes on a computer keyboard." This template isn't interested in the details of the underlying technology that operates the keyboard, it's simply concerned with the location on the keyboard of the key being pressed, i.e. the keyboard layout. Lots of pages use this template. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Are they looking for keyboard layout? The template remains valid. In the very unlikely event that someone might want to use that template but not know what a keyboard is, then the hardware article is as good as any as first port of call. The first item they will see is a hatnote telling them that there is another article about the many presentations in software of the same hardware. Sorry but I struggle to see how this is a significant issue for the overwhelming majority of editors let alone visitors. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The work that went into the present articles is extensive.

Is there a place where the sections and subsections of the pre-TNT Computer keyboard article can be inventoried, to be reasonably assured that, as was written above, parts of 15-20 years' work isn't lost?

To start with, where can I find the first paragraph's

A computer keyboard is a typewriter-style device which uses an arrangement of buttons or keys to act as mechanical levers or electronic switches. Replacing early punched cards and paper tape technology, interaction via teleprinter-style keyboards have been the main input method for computers since the 1970s, supplemented by the computer mouse since the 1980s.

Is there a roadmap? Pi314m (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

My roadmap is based on the principle that a summary article should be an overview of the subject, whose primary purposes are (a) to inform readers who just want to know the essentials and/or (b) to provide a Pathfinder (library science) facility to highlight where to find more detailed or related material.

So, for your example, the first line of the lead of the draft is sufficient to my eye.

A computer keyboard is a typewriter-style input device that uses an arrangement of buttons or keys that act as electronic switches.

Your extract is too unfocused to be appropriate for a summary article. How are punched cards and paper tape essential to an overview of keyboards? Most readers weren't even born when paper tape ceased to be an input/output medium. Yes, it is important and useful information but only in the right context. A summary article is not it. It passes neither test [a] nor test [b]. (Yes, I recognise the value of the work that went into creating the original article but it has been overtaken by technology, so that it is now in the wrong place. Could it be reused in a History of Computers and Computing article?) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:Thanks for your thoughtful response. The article Text entry interface uses the above "A computer keyboard is.." wording, but I didn't see any type of link from Keyboard technology to Text entry interface; shouldn't there be one? Is it just "Rome wasn't built in a day?" Pi314m (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pi314m: Thank you too, for the same reason. No doubt the ideal article is going to be somewhere between my preference for a concise, even terse, summary article and your understandable desire not to lose some good material in the process. (I notice btw that History of computing and History of computing hardware exist, could the material be moved there?).

I've had a look at Text entry interface. The term interface (computing) has dual meaning too but it seems to me that the keyboard technology article is indeed the correct target from the Text entry interface#Computer keyboard text entry section. (Rather than, say, to our planned summary article, given that the section in question begins with just such a summary. So we will need a hat-note to say where to go for the detail.)

Or is your suggestion that the summary article should include a link to the TEI article? (Either way, I think it should so I'll add it now anyway). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wbm1058, I reverted your reversion back to the March version of this article, which was poorly written and substantially a duplicate of the main articles. I merged any unique content into them. The discussion above, although thin, left a very long time for fellow editors to respond: few did. Following the change, there has not been a single complaint until yours, today. I suggest strongly that the onus is on you to justify why such a useless article should be reinstated as it was.

There may well be a case for creation of a summary style article: if so, then please propose some text that is exactly that. The version your reinstated is not it. But as I wrote earlier, I searched the 'what links here' with the intention of creating at least a disambiguation article but in every case I found, the associated text showed that the concern was about hardware technology, not software 'personality'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I would be very happy to work with you to write such a summary article. But I think we would be best to restart from first principles. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Give me 24 hours and I will write a first draft to show what I think it should be. That will at least give us a basis for discussion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why this version can't be a basis for discussion. Blowing up 15–20 years of work by many different editors to start over again from scratch seems a radical move to me. This article should be the first port of call and start with a definition of "what a keyboard is". – wbm1058 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Essentially because the same work is replicated in the other two articles (probably by many of the same editors) but done in a more logical and coherent fashion. What we had was an unambiguous WP:content fork, albeit an unintentional one: the topic simply outgrew the original single article. It had become an unwieldy mess.

Nevertheless, I recognise the validity of your underlying concern, so I have done a 'first cut' of a replacement article that in effect amounts to a heavy edit of the original rather than a total wp:NUKE, see User:John Maynard Friedman/Computer keyboard/Sandbox. It is very much just an outline at this stage but I hope that you can see it as a realistic starting point. Obviously the other alternative is actually to heavily edit the original article to remove all the detailed material, which I suspect will be a lot more work than selecting which aspects belong in a summary article and which are too detailed and are covered better elsewhere – cherry picking is generally easier than weeding. For example, I copied the History section verbatim. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Compare Pages – wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

and your point is? how about comparing with Keyboard technology and Keyboard layout?

A summary article has to be just that, not going back to where we were a few months ago with four articles saying essentially the same thing. [Four because QWERTY is in the repetition game too.] If you think that important material has been discarded in the process, then you should move it to one of the main articles as appropriate and add a summary of it to the sandbox article.

It is interesting, is it not, that nobody else has lent support to your perspective? or indeed contributed to this discussion in any way whatever? It does seem to suggest that no-one else is discontented with the status quo. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, you say you copied the History section verbatim. History of the computer keyboardHistory of the computer keyboard redirects to Keyboard technology § History. This has become one of many broken section anchors (but doesn't appear on that list because no incoming links and virtually no page views). Where is this section that you "copied verbatim"? Oh, I see. It's in your sandbox, except your sandbox isn't part of the encyclopedia. I'm not going into your sandbox to make edits because your sandbox is essentially a content fork of this existing article (when it isn't redirecting) and if you paste from your sandbox you, and you alone, will have attribution for all the content introduced in that edit. wbm1058 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: When we agree on what the summary article should contain, that is what it will contain. I am still struggling to see that it should have significantly more content than the draft in my sandbox, short of recreating it as it was: substantially a duplicate of the two main articles.

Under no circumstances would I do a copy/paste without attribution but in any case the obvious method is to reinstate the original article and strip out the material that is properly and adequately covered in the two main articles. It remains the case that you are the only person who has questioned (or even commented on) the change to a redirect, so 'consensus' is a bit difficult to achieve: I may have to just 'be bold'.

Thank you for pointing out the database of broken section anchors, I hadn't seen that before so will aim to resolve them in the next week or two. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The trouble with nuking a main article is that when you do that the double-redirect fixing bots get busy retargeting to the sub-article. I've reverted the bots on the most obvious ones that should be links to Computer keyboard. History of computer keyboardsHistory of computer keyboards and History of the computer keyboardHistory of the computer keyboard redirect to Computer keyboard § History and we can't revert to a redirect without breaking those. I marked the first as {{R with possibilities}} meaning that if the history section in this article ever gets too long, then the more detailed content can be split to a new article there, similarly to the way content has been split to the detailed articles on layout and technology. My understanding is that you are OK with keeping the history section as-is. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: The status of this article was discussed earlier this year and its essential redundancy established by consensus of interested editors, who agreed that it should be reduced to a redirect. Nevertheless you have just reinstated it without any discussion, let alone consensus. You proposed that a summary article be created, which I accepted, yet you have contributed nothing to the draft. I invite you to self-revert and discuss. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The first response to your proposal at #Deletion plan was a suggestion for an alternate arrangement: Merge most of the content of Keyboard technology, which is almost entirely about computer keyboards, into this article. That's not what you did; it seems you did the opposite, copying much of the content of this article into Keyboard technology. It's OK to merge a sub-article into a main article and then redirect the sub-article, but it's not OK to redirect the main article to one of its subs – the main article should still summarize the content in its sub-articles.

This article covers three broad areas: (1)History (2)Layout (3)Technology – each of these should be summarized in the lead section. The history section is brief and has no sub-article, while the other two are long and cover the topics in excessive detail. Go ahead and reduce the length of those sections so that they only summarize the key points of the sub-articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Computer keyboard has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a reference to the Keycap article under the main section where it describes a keycap in detail. FramedEmu548 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done It is already wikilinked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The [Escape key section](https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Computer_keyboard#Escape_key) is not exactly formal: The escape key (often abbreviated Esc) "nearly all of the time"[25] signals Stop -[26] QUIT -[27] let me "get out of a dialog"[25] (or pop-up window):[28] LET ME ESCAPE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qucchia (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The text here is an exact quote from the sources. Not really elegant but not wrong. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The section lacked an opening sentence, which didn't help. I have done so now, feel free to improve. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I used a Univac keypunch machine, I think in the 1970s, that had an electromechanical noisemaker (a large relay?) that made a clacking sound as each keyboard key was pressed. This machine accepted an entire line of text before punching the card, unlike IBM keypunches, that punched the card column-by-column as it was entered. The conventional wisdom as I recall was that someone familiar with typewriters could not type accurately without the audible feedback.

I think, probably, the noice maker applies for the typewriters and maybe early computer keyboards, also modern have some noice but not really too much. --Studierendj5236 (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to ask about the Shift Key, is it always two Shift keys? --Studierendj5236 (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the keyboard. Very compact keyboards dispense with all the duplicated keys (Shift, Ctrl, Alt) but all 'normal' keyboards have two shift keys. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Also I am not sure how to define the difference in keys on technological design for computer keyboard and typewriter? --Studierendj5236 (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully Keyboard technology has the answer you are looking for? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, there is a repetition of words:

...other keys or simultaneous key presses can prompt the computer to execute system commands, such as such as the Control-Alt-Delete combination used with Microsoft Windows... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qucchia (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead section because it had ceased to comply with wp:LEAD: a succinct summary of the body content. It had become overloaded with detail that belongs in the body. Comment welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we have the ability to move some discussions for other articles because the repetition especially the useless one is not about keyboard or rather rearly it could be about some software or hardware disfunction, I hope we don't have such any more? --Studierendj5236 (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Which material in which article(s)? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Knowledgeable guys out there, I find it quite lacking for the "History" section of the article "Computer Keyboard" to jump from the keyboard for punching cards (before computers, 1930s) to the addition of the mouse (1980s). Please add a candidate for the first alphanumeric keyboard. The Whirldwind Mark I article says "In 1955, the Whirlwind Mark I computer was the first[7] computer equipped with a keyboard-printer combination with which to support direct input of data and commands and output of results". Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)